"The next James Bond will be more in touch with his feelings, producers say"
sirso
Posts: 212MI6 Agent
"The next James Bond will be more in touch with his feelings, producers say"
sirso
Posts: 212MI6 Agent
"The next James Bond will be more in touch with his feelings, producers say"
Comments
I think it's important to read the original interview rather than a Chinese Whispers version of it from a right-wing newspaper, because they don't say what they're being quoted as in that headline, which seems to be trying to provoke people to whine about 'woke' etc.
The only part where it's really addressed is:
“It’s an evolution,” she says. “Bond is evolving just as men are evolving. I don’t know who’s evolving at a faster pace.”
Craig, she adds, “cracked Bond open emotionally,” bringing audiences into the character’s inner life. “The films over his tenure were the first time we really connected the emotional arc.”
So not really saying much, really.
It's a quite revelation/content-free interview, so it seems a good sign in how interested people are in Bond that it's being so widely disseminated.
No, but we know from the way it went with Craig's portrayal, more feelings will come in. The word "evolving" worries me. Are men evolving... yes, if social engineering works.
Bond has been evolving since the late 70s: not much in the way of kissing lesbians until they like it or having the main girl be an idiot and run around in a bikini since then. He also packed in smoking in about 1974 (fell off the wagon briefly for a couple of years in the late 80s but that's about it). If Bond cooking a quiche 40 years ago wasn't 'social engineering', then I'd say it isn't now.
As I say, a rather clickbait headline which isn't a quote of anything they said in the interview and designed to get people outraged about nothing.
The claim that Craig cracked open Bond emotionally is a bit rich, arc or no arc. Connery conveyed more feeling with a single micro-movement of his brows.
In touch with his feelings, you say...?
Stop that! We'll have no feelings around here! 😁
As a person from the Nordic countries I object to the display of emotions here. I'm sure 0073 also dispassionately agrees with me.
Of course not, cos Bond didn't have feelings till Craig came along.
Never.
Never, ever.
Nev...
Ok, maybe we'll let that one go.
If you're in touch with your feelings, how do you feel about me?
I... love... you.
Well, I'm glad we got *that* out of the way!
I think it more the case grumpy CraigBond was emotionally repressed
Always accusing his girlfriend of being a SPECTRE agent whenever she tried to tell him she was having his baby, that sort of thing.
In which case this could be the return to normalcy we've all been waiting for!
Another interview which covers similar ground, but there is an unexpected mention of James Bond Jr from Ms Broccoli!
Good point. All previous Bonds have been in touch with their feelings. So why is Eon saying that the new one needs to be in touch with his feelings?
Maybe Eon are hoping to make Bond bisexual, as suggested in Skyfall?
They might introduce a son he had years ago but was unaware of. Maybe they want to create a spin-off franchise from this, with his son being trained to be an agent and going on missions himself, and occasionally teaming up with dad (and maybe mum) in some missions. God help the franchise if that happens.
The producers need to be in touch with us Bond fans feelings and get their arses into gear and give us a Bond film every two years like their dad did.
How about a movie, 'James Bond: Into the Bondy-Verse' where a diversity of Bonds, variously in touch with their feelings, assemble to defeat an arch-nemesis? That could include an anime James Bond Jr.
I think I'd just stay at home and watch CR067.
How about they start concentrating on getting a good actor in, preferably Cavill and make sure he concentrates on the job in hand with little influence on the script and plot direction.
+1. Sadly, ain't gonna happen though. 🙁
Also +1. Want some company?
Moore's Bond had a few emotional scenes in too. In A View to a Kill we see the tender side of him, when he tucks the sleeping Stacy Sutton's blanket in, and leaves the room.
In the same film he shows moral disgust when Zorin kills the guy in the office (who Bond had earlier interviewed posing as a journalist) in San Francisco in front of Bond and Stacy.
In fact of all the Bonds, Moore's was the most tender towards women. Yet he pulled it off, because he got the balance right between being killing people flippantly and being tender with women.
If this is what Eon want to bring back with the new Bond, then that is ok by me. But I worry that Eon want the new Bond to pander to ideas as to what a "man" should be in the eyes of the woke brigade. If that happens, it will be the end of Bond on screen.
Marvel comic films have gone very woke and they are losing money. See:
"Woke Is Just Part of the Problem Plaguing the MCU Now"
My biggest worry is that Eon, in an attempt to be "right on", want to take Bond into the realm of the transgender universe. Not that they would make him transgender, but the world he operates in will be populated with some characters like this. Probably the villains, at first, which ironically will offend the "progressive" audiences Eon are trying to attract. Eon could, though, have him merely questioning his gender from time to time. Or they could "reveal" him as being bisexual, or as a victim of child-abuse at his school, hence the reason for all the neurosis the new Bond will be prone to.
If any of this happens, it will be the end of Bond in film format. The saying "go woke, go broke" might apply here. This is currently a problem Marvel action films are struggling with:
"Woke Is Just Part of the Problem Plaguing the MCU Now"
https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/woke-mcu-losing-audiences-phase-4/
As I explained in the second post, they didn't say that. The Telegraph headline said it. Two different things.
As I said in post #2:
"I think it's important to read the original interview rather than a Chinese Whispers version of it from a right-wing newspaper, because they don't say what they're being quoted as in that headline, which seems to be trying to provoke people to whine about 'woke' etc."
It is amazing how headlines work. We live in a post-truth world I guess.
Very odd how bisexuality is equated with 'being in touch with feelings' too. Wouldn't being bisexual just mean he has more people to callously shag and forget about?
how did we leap from "being more in touch with his feelings" to a transsexual Bond? I'm missing some steps in that logic
________________
sirso said:
The word "evolving" worries me. Are men evolving... yes, if social engineering works.
________________
Evolution works by Natural Selection, according to Darwin. External pressures, like changing climate, favour certain genes over others and in the long run those with the favoured genes stand a better chance of procreating.
Filmmaking evolves with the external pressure of market forces: what proves popular with audiences begets more of the same until something else sells better.
I think BB is still very emotionally invested in her overwhelming love and appreciation of DC, and wants to develop further what she feels he alone unlocked within the character. I think perhaps as the custodian of one of the most influential series of films viewed by billions worldwide from all walks of life, she also feels personally responsible for making as diverse and socially responsible film as possible, within the parameters of what audiences will accept as still being a James Bond film. So, perhaps we'll certainly see more emotion, empathy, vulnerability, compassion, sentimentality from the lead actor. To be fair though, all the Bond actors have delivered this at times when asked of them and required to do so, whilst still remaining true to what we want our 007 to fundamentally be.
I just hope it doesn't go too far the other way and actually change James Bond's personality and character, just for the sake of going somewhere new with the arc, trying to tick and shoehorn all the social injustice boxes.
It's the direction of travel, since it was suggested that Bond could be bisexual in Skyfall. Most of Hollywood is invested in reflecting the culture we live in today, and so it is not outlandish to suggest that transgender issues will play a part in the Bond universe.
By the way, "transexual" is an offensive term these days to transgender people. I'm not offended by it, just saying.
Yes, but look at the paragraph preceding your quote:
"Both Wilson and Broccoli, who is a director of the U.K. chapter of women’s advocacy org Time’s Up, have left their mark on Bond, particularly in humanizing the once-womanizing spy and ensuring more fulfilling, meatier roles for the female stars of the franchise. These are qualities that will continue in the next films, says Broccoli."
It looks to me the travel of direction is towards a more feminised Bond, and more masculine women. Soon Bond will be "the Bond girl". And will be written out of the films to be replaced by a female Bond. I hope I'm wrong.
"I just hope it doesn't go too far the other way and actually change James Bond's personality and character, just for the sake of going somewhere new with the arc, trying to tick and shoehorn all the social injustice boxes."
As long as Barbara is in charge, this is a real threat. Her father will be spinning in his grave.
This is exactly the direction the literary Jack Ryan series has gone in.